|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 551 Records
-
2000 (7) TMI 955
... ...
... ... ..... nion. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Union of India 1990 79 STC 437 dealing with a similar provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, held There is no dispute that the Union of India is the owner of the Northern Railway Departmental Catering, Railway Station, Pathankot. The goods were purchased by the railways and were sold by the railways. The tax was imposed on the sale of goods. At the time of the sale, the goods belonged to the Railways. In view of the provisions of article 285(1) of the Constitution, such sales were immune from taxation under the State law. That was also the view of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed, but no order as to costs. 5.. The demand notice issued by respondent No. 3 was, therefore, without jurisdiction being contrary to the mandate of article 285(1) of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly allowed and the notice (annexure A) is quashed. No order is made as to costs of this petition. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 954
... ...
... ... ..... h is liable for tax under section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 having regard to the fact that ghova has been bought from non-dealers. Thus, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are quite in order. As no tax was paid on this turnover even by filing a revised return before final assessment, the penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is also in order, in terms of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. reported in 1996 100 STC 269. The quantum of penalty fixed at 50 per cent of tax due, is also not excessive. Therefore, there is no case to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 7.. Accordingly, the tax revision case is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 25th day of July 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 953
... ...
... ... ..... shes and separate bills for labour charges. In such circumstances, the assessment made by treating the transactions as sale of quashes and fruit jam is quite in order. As regards levy of tax, though the assessing authority levied tax at 5 per cent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of enhancement petition levied tax at 10 per cent by classifying the goods under entry 103 of the First Schedule to the Act which relates to foods including preparation of vegetables, fruits, etc., and sold under a brand name. Thus, we find that the classification made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also is proper and there is no case to interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the tax revision case is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 6th day of July 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 952
... ...
... ... ..... ict the sales tax authorities from collecting the tax which they are duty bound to collect in view of the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal. When the collection of tax cannot be said to be without authority of law and there is a statutory injunction based on discernible reasons against staying the tax recovery pending disposal of revision case by the High Court, we fail to appreciate how this Court could grant interim relief in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226. In any case, having regard to the categorical findings of the Tribunal and the petitioner failing to make out a case of grave or undue hardship, the discretionary power even if it is assumed to exist, need not be exercised. The only power the High Court has, is to grant instalments under sub-section (6) of section 22. The petitioner may file a petition in the T.R.C. seeking permission to pay the tax in instalments. The writ petition is dismissed without costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 951
... ...
... ... ..... made clear that serving of a notice on KSIIDC under section 14 of the K.S.T. Act does not come in the way of the present proceeding under section 13(3)(b) of the K.S.T. Act initiated at Civil Miscellaneous No. 1507 of 1996 being continued because, as sub-section (3) of section 13 of the K.S.T. Act makes it clear at the outset, the recovery under the said subsection (3) would be without prejudice to any other mode of collection. In addition to serving a notice under section 14 of the K.S.T. Act therefore, the respondent-authority would be at liberty to proceed with Civil Miscellaneous No. 1507 of 1996 under section 13(3)(b) of the K.S.T. Act, wherein the learned Magistrate could still proceed to recover the sales tax arrears due under section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure if any property of the assessee is available other than what is taken possession of by KSIIDC. Impugned order modified accordingly, and petition disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (7) TMI 950
... ...
... ... ..... P7 and P9 are quashed with the direction to the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner under proviso to section 39(5) of the Act and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This shall be done within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order. 10.. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to observe that the order, annexure P5, passed by the appellate authority is extremely cryptic, arbitrary and is totally devoid of reasons. On the face of it, the order discloses total non-application of mind by the concerned authority to the statutory conditions enshrined in proviso to section 39(5) of the Act and we hope that while passing fresh order, the officer concerned will keep in mind that power under the proviso can be exercised only if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant is incapable of depositing the amount of tax, penalty and interest. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 949
... ...
... ... ..... ng the land fit for cultivation. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, it has to be held that the above three items are agricultural implements. It may be that pickaxe, shovel and crow-bar are used for other purpose, such as road work, etc., also. That does not mean that the said item ceases to be agricultural implements. The fact that these three items are not included in the explanation, which are added in 1987 or that they were included in 1998 has no relevance for the purpose of this case. According to us, the Tribunal erred in holding that the three items dealt with by the assessee are not agricultural implements entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under Notification S.R.O. No. 342 of 1963. We accordingly direct the assessing authority to exclude the turnover of pickaxe, shovel and crow-bar from payment of sales tax and to modify the assessment accordingly. The tax revision case is allowed as above. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 948
... ...
... ... ..... the opinion that the authority was not justified in resorting to service by affixture of notice at the last known place of business in this case because the other modes were not exhausted. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and remand the matter back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai to take up the appeal on file and dispose of the same on merits. In other words, we hold that the appeal was filed in time on the basis of the certified copy, which was furnished to the petitioner, which alone is the date from which the period of limitation could have been reckoned. 8.. In fine, the tax revision case is allowed in the above manner. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 12th day of July, 2000. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 947
... ...
... ... ..... d justify refusal, to refund, does exist. The reason stated by the first respondent that the review orders are awaited from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax is not a relevant ground or reason to withhold the refund particularly when it is not the case of the first respondent that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax has already initiated the proceeding under section 20 of the Act. 5.. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for refund of the tax after making necessary enquiry under section 33-BB of the Act. This direction shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that, if the first respondent, after necessary enquiry, finds that the incidence of tax is not passed on to the purchaser, he is obliged to refund the tax without any undue delay. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 946
... ...
... ... ..... e proceedings. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the reporting officer himself took up the impugned assessment proceedings and completed the same. This he could not have done. 3.. In the result, the assessment order dated January 21, 1999 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, East Circle, Cuttack at annexure 5 and the first appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I Range, Cuttack dated December 9, 1999 in Sales Tax Appeal No. AA 656 CU-I E/98-99 at annexure I are hereby set aside. The department is free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4.. It was brought to our notice that the same officer is still continuing as the Sales Tax Officer in Cuttack-I East Circle, Cuttack. In the fitness of things, the assessment proceeding may be taken up by any other officer of the same rank. 5.. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 6.. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... ification of mosquito repellent in the Schedule. The Supreme Court found that since mosquito repellent mat was specifically mentioned in the Schedule, petitioners cannot claim that it can be classified as an insecticides. But, the Supreme Court also found that the Jet mat having as one of its constituents d-Allethrin 4 per cent , has the qualities of an insecticide. It not only repels mosquitoes but is also capable of killing them, but in view of the most specific entry mosquito repellent in the Schedule, it can be classified only under that entry. 5.. We are disposing of the original petitions holding that the mosquito repellent mat manufactured by the petitioners can be classified under entries 87 and 139 as the case may be as pesticides before it was more specifically classified from April 1, 1991 onwards. The authorities may conclude the proceedings on the basis of the above direction. Order on C.M.P. No. 8494 of 1994 in O.P. No. 4637 of 1994 dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 944
... ...
... ... ..... ct, it is not unconstitutional and a legislative classification making the burden of the tax heavier in proportion to the increase in the turnover, would be reasonable. 6.. Analysing all these factors and the position of law as the restriction to make branch transfer or consignment transfer is intended only to avoid the loss of revenue by way of concession, as the goods disappear from the State with concessional rate, the restriction is not only justifiable but also reasonable. Under these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the portion of the impugned Government order is offending article 304(a) of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, the relief sought for in this original petition cannot be granted and the same is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 11th day of July, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 943
... ...
... ... ..... able to sales tax as well as surcharge in respect of his entire turnover. The Act does not contemplate any dissection of this turnover into transactions on behalf of various principals by reference to their individual liability to pay either sales tax or surcharge. 5.. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, we have no hesitation in holding that the agent is liable for additional sales tax also irrespective of the turnover of the principals, namely, the various Central Government departments and the liability of such turnover for additional sales tax. Thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal is in order. There is no case to interfere. Accordingly, the tax revision case is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 18th day of July, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... under section 31 of the Act for the purposes of the provisions of the Act do not pertain to sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Act. The Commissioner has power to search and seize the documents of a dealer after recording the reason for the same, as provided under sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Act, after obtaining a search warrant and in that event, sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 would be applicable. But, if there is suspicion of evasion of tax or failure to produce the documents or to make them available for inspection attracting sub-section (2) of section 27, namely, it being a cognizable offence, a police officer would be entitled to resort to the provisions of section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17.. That being the position, we find no reason to interfere in the matter. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. D.N. CHOWDHURY, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 941
... ...
... ... ..... aler was in accordance with law. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner is right in annulling the assessment order passed under section 12(8) of the Act and the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the State against such order of the Assistant Commissioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question against the Revenue in the following manner "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal is justified to hold that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the sale of furnace oil to the purchasing dealer once necessary declaration form is furnished by the purchasing dealer and necessary endorsement is available in the registration certificate of the purchasing dealer even if purchasing dealer does not utilise the said goods in the manner he has undertaken to utilise the same as per declaration form." 7. The reference application is accordingly, dismissed. CH. P.K. MISRA, J.-I agree. Application dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 940
... ...
... ... ..... n treated as oil seed by the consumer but as an item of Kerana. The findings which has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of appraisal of evidence and material on record are pure findings of fact. Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides of levy of penalty if any person being registered dealer falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by a certificate of registration, thus for levying penalty under section 10(b) of the Act the dealer should falsely represent that the goods are covered by the certificate of registration. The word falsely implies deliberate act which has been done knowingly. In the present case the findings recorded by the Tribunal are that the assessee-opposite party had not deliberately given any false representation while purchasing goods. Thus, the penal provision under section 10(b) of the Act was not at all attracted. The revisions lack merit and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 939
... ...
... ... ..... y bought by the petitioner used to be sold to the third party, who would then export it outside the territory of India. Thus, the transactions involving purchase of paddy by the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of section 5(3) read with section 15(ca) of the Central Act. It was not a transaction preceding the sale or purchase of the paddy occasioning export thereof outside India. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority had rightly held that the petitioner is liable to pay the purchase tax. 12.. The decisions relied upon by Shri Goyal on the scope of the power of review vested in the Tribunal do not have any bearing on the facts of this case because, as already mentioned above, the order dated August 16, 1999 passed by the Tribunal suffered from a patent error of law and there existed sufficient reason for its review. 13.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 938
... ...
... ... ..... t of the learned counsel that the appellate order is vitiated due to non-consideration of the request of the petitioner for grant of exemption on account of financial incapacity is wholly devoid of substance. A bare perusal of the above extracted portion of the appellate order shows that respondent No. 3 has considered all the relevant factors and declined to entertain the petitioner s prayer for total exemption by observing that it had running business with substantial annual turnover. The Tribunal has expressed its concurrence with the appellate order and we see no reason to take a different view. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we accept Shri Dogra s request and grant two months time to the petitioner to comply with the direction given by the Tribunal. This would mean that if the petitioner deposits the amount of tax within stipulated period then the Appellate Authority shall hear its appeal on merits. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 937
... ...
... ... ..... sing Authority on the premise that a reference has been made to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner for taking suo motu action to revise the order of the Appellate Authority. In our considered view, such reference cannot ipso facto entitle the competent authority to withhold the refund. This view of ours finds support from the order dated April 8, 1997, passed in C.W.P. No. 2647 of 1997 Bhasin Associates v. State of Haryana 1998 109 STC 109 (P and H) . 8.. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of penalty deposited by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The interest shall be calculated for the period between June 1, 1999 and the date of actual payment. The respondents are also given liberty to adjust the amount to be refunded to the petitioner together with interest against any other outstanding demand within one month from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (7) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... was justified because the very grant thereof was contrary to the conditions enumerated in form S.T. 70. In our opinion, both the issues can appropriately be examined and decided by the competent authority after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11.. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 is declared illegal and quashed. The consequential action taken by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority is also declared illegal and quashed. The Lower Level Screening Committee/any other competent authority shall be free to pass fresh order in the case of the petitioner after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to it. At such hearing, the petitioner shall be free to raise all permissible objections. Similarly, the department shall be free to show that on account of violation of the conditions stipulated in form S.T. 70, the petitioner was not entitled to get eligibility certificate. Writ petition allowed.
........
|
